Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" (7th nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. per WP:SNOW (non-admin) - Milk's   Favorite   Cookie  21:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck"


Previous AfDs for this article: Votes for deletion/Record for most number of times the word fuck has been used in a film Articles for deletion/List of films ordered by uses of the word fuck Articles for deletion/List of films ordered by uses of the word "fuck" (3rd nomination) Articles for deletion/List of films ordered by uses of the word "fuck" (4th nomination) Articles for deletion/List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" (2nd nomination) Articles for deletion/List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" 

Per all my reasons on the last AfD, the list is compiled in a manner that constitutes original research. In this case, being sourced is irrelevant. The word "fuck" is notable and the films themselves are also notable, which does not make this mere statistic notable. Note, this has nothing to do with censorship. The Dominator (talk) 15:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   The Dominator (talk) 15:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete this list is cruft, not needed. ArcAngel (talk) 15:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete: Oh, for pity's sake. What's next, List of films that most frequently display a female nipple?  Complete OR -- I can't imagine there's actually reliable source out there tabulating this information.    RGTraynor  15:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC) I won't vote to Keep on a bit of nonsense like this, but I do agree that AfDs a month apart without compelling new evidence or lack of non-fluffy consensus are obnoxious.    RGTraynor  17:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep No evidence that consensus has changed since the last time round. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There was no consensus last time around. +Hexagon1 (t) 21:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep not because I want to see this article stay, but because the last AFD was just a little over a month ago. I feel that it's too soon to seek a new consensus again -- at least six months would have been preferable.  While I feel that the nominator does not intend this, this AFD so soon makes me concerned about an attempt to game the system.  I would recommend withdrawal of the AFD for the present time and explore a new AFD when significant time has passed.  In addition, I would ask an admin to move the AFD pages around -- the February 2008 one should end with (2nd nomination), the March 2007 one that currently has (2nd nomination) should not have it, and this one should have (3rd nomination). — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 16:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Erik, I don't see what you mean a change of consensus? The last AfD ended tightly as no consensus which is exactly what the name implies, there is no consensus and I nominated so we can reach it. The Dominator (talk) 17:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I was saying that it's too soon to push for a new AFD so soon after the last one. You were not by any means a small participant in the last AFD, so the fact that you bring it up so soon again can be seen as a sign of gaming.  Klausness and Colonel Warden have expressed this concern as well.  I really think that if the AFD for this article was to be renewed, it should be either after a certain duration of time or nominated by an editor uninvolved with previous AFDs.  It's not looked upon lightly to repeat an AFD to get your preferred result.  You may think that your arguments are objective, but the other side think theirs are objective, too. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 19:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Two AfDs have failed already, and I don't see any new arguments for deletion.  Not getting the AfD results you wanted last time is not a good reason for renominating an article.  Klausness (talk) 16:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's completely appropriate to revisit AFD for an article, maybe unless there is an undisputed snowball keep for a topic. In addition, the first AFD resulted in "keep", and the second AFD resulted in "no consensus", so perhaps the third AFD, if set up in time, addressing all previous arguments, could result in "delete".  My concern was that it's too soon to revisit the community's present stance on the article. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 16:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment If it has survived three whole nominations what makes you think it will be removed this time? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There are articles like Daniel Brandt that have undergone AFD processes into double digits and do ultimately get deleted. It's not beyond the realm of possibility. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 19:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment It is a bit closer together than most AfD's but it did end in a tight no consensus so I think it's completely appropriate. What new evidence are you waiting for exactly? Nothing is going to change even if we waited a decade, the list is still going to be trivial listcruft full of OR research and people will still vote the same way. The Dominator (talk) 17:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Disruptive repeat nomination. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read my comments and assume good faith. The Dominator (talk) 18:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Yes I am biased, as I've edited the article a lot, and yes its amusing (and there is nothing wrong with that). But more importantly:
 * Obviously, the word fuck is different from random other words (including other swearing and sexual slang), given the controversy that surrounds it.
 * Excessive usage of the word fuck in specific movies is often mentioned in reviews/reports, showing the notability of the subject.
 * A clearly defined cut-off (100 in this case) narrows the scope of the article, making it easier to maintain and sets it apart from what are often called "indiscriminate lists". As also mentioned before, many lists naming the top XXXX of something on Wikipedia use an arbitrary cut-off. This is not original research, but only a way to keep the maintenance and size of such articles under control.
 * The main argument in most previous AfDs was sourcing. It is properly sourced now for a long time, making all information verifiable.
 * Articles likes this are exactly what makes Wikipedia different from other encyclopedias (NOT:PAPER).
 * So in summary, the article does NOT violate WP:A, WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:LIST or WP:CLS. Therefore, I do not see the grounds for deletion. --Reinoutr (talk) 18:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for stating your prior involvement. I think the concern that was reflected in the last AFD was that it uses family measurement websites as references to support this topic, where if you review the references from these websites, none of them point out its rank as a film that has used the most f-words.  They just say, "This film has x many f-words in it."  Certainly, there are films that are known for their profanity, but many of the films on that list don't have that notoriety.  The references are synthesized to give the false appearance of a list where the large majority of these films have never before been identified specifically as a film that most frequently uses the word "fuck".  Since this is the case, it is not encyclopedic to have all these irrelevant examples.  They're not known for their frequency of the f-word, thus they can't be part of the topic.  I don't have a problem with a prose article about the word "fuck" in film using examples of films that have clearly been identified to go overboard with profanity, like the South Park film.  In this case, though, only a handful of films can have a claim to fame with its f-word frequency.  The overwhelming majority of them do not -- they use family measurement websites written for the purpose of outlining the appropriateness of a film, not an independently composed list or article of f-word frequency. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 19:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * We do this all the time, all over Wikipedia. I am not gonna give overwhelming evidence, just one totally random example that I could think of. See the article List of largest suspension bridges, with the bri~dge at position 17 in the list. This: is the supplied reference. Not exactly a reference that discusses how this bridge is well known for its length. It just shows some details and, indeed, the length of the bridge. Is that article ever nominated for deletion? Not once. In fact, it is a Featured list. --Reinoutr (talk) 21:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * To any closing admin: please don't speedy close, a full discussion and all opinions are welcome. --Reinoutr (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) The word is no different than shit, piss, cunt, slut or whore in the US, and is equivalent to just about any swear word in real English (sorry, couldn't resist :) ) and is equvalent to words like "concubine" in China. I have never heard or thought of it as unique. 2) It is not excessive usage of the word fuck but of profanity. Again, I've never heard a proper movie critic single out the word fuck for critique. 3) Your cut of is arbitrary and therefore WP:OR. This may sound strange but you would not believe some of the debates regarding cut-offs for lists. 4) Starting an article about a known Jo'burg prostitute would also probably be unique among encyclopaedias but do you think we'd keep it? +Hexagon1 (t) 21:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1)Then why is there a movie dedicated to the usage of the word fuck, as well as many scientific articles?
 * 2) An example of a movie critic commenting on the use of the word fuck in a movie:
 * 3) Choosing cutoffs is arbitrary, but not OR, see many other articles on Wikipedia (like the example above).
 * --Reinoutr (talk) 21:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Same reason why FOX is still in business, the proles demand 'entertainment'. Just because there was an art exhibit in NYC where a man self-circumcised with a swiss army knife doesn't necessitate the creation of List of artists who circumcised themselves on stage. 2) Blogspot doesn't exactly qualify as a 'proper' movie critic for me. 3) I know many others have arbitrary cut-offs but all of those could be challenged. Just because everyone else does it... PS: Your scientific sources either deal with the translation of fuck (due to its versatility) or take it as a case study. They don't discuss this new "concept" we've invented here on Wiki. +Hexagon1 (t) 21:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep &mdash; does not appear consensus has changed since the last AfD. The above argument is also rather convincing. --Haemo (talk) 18:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Carlossuarez46. Lugnuts (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply per Carlossuarez46. Thought per me-tooism. +Hexagon1 (t) 21:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't agree with the other users who claimed that this was original research. It would be original research if Wikipedia editors counted up the uses themselves, but in this case there are apparently third-party sources that tabulated and posted this, and the article is citing those sources. It therefore meets WP:NOR as well as WP:V. Just because an article might not be included in a paper encyclopedia doesn't mean it should not be included here. *** Crotalus *** 20:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the sources do not count profanity for the express purpose of identifying films that most frequently use the word "fuck". There are a few films that have sources for this, but the majority of the films depend on family measurement websites that only provide the amount of profanity usage to determine a film's appropriateness, not to declare it a frequent user of the f-word.  Thus, it's a hodge-podge of unrelated resources that gives the false impression of being directly related to the topic.  Most of these films have not at all been identified by secondary sources as films that most frequently use the word "fuck".  Their notoriety is exaggerated, basically, because it's the result of research from family measurement websites. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 20:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) I said that the individual pieces aren't OR but the way it is compiled is. There is no such thing as a "fuck list", Wikipedia users invented that, hence it is OR. The Dominator (talk) 20:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * By that criteria, every list on Wikipedia is either a copyright violation (if it's copied directly from a third-party source) or original research (if it's synthesized by other sources). In practice, WP:NOR has never been interpreted in that fashion, and shouldn't be. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and we should use common sense and precedent to guide our actions here. <b style="color:#1111AA; font-family:monospace, monospace;">*** Crotalus ***</b> 00:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 *  BURN Delete. This article is ridiculous and has only become semi-policy compliant due to my continued whinging on the talk page. It can fit nicely in one sentence in the Fuck article. And previous votes shouldn't matter - especially as no consensus was reached - not a keep vote. This is a new vote by another editor who wants the article dead and I wholeheartedly agree. How is it that we don't have articles on the majority of Aboriginal peoples but when the word 'fuck' rolls about the giggling hordes start an article with graphs and "Fucks Per Minute" statistics on it (check the history). And I like the List of films that most frequently display a female nipple, let's start it if the AfD fails. :) +Hexagon1 (t) 21:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's clear you don't like this article, and that's understandable, but I find your characterisation (on the talk page and in this discussion) of editors who have worked on the article or support its retention as "immature" "giggling" "12 year olds" really quite offensive and somewhat uncivil. --Canley (talk) 17:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Despite the previous no consensus result, there hasn't been enough time between AfDs for much to change either with the article or with consensable opinion. This merely feels like a fishing expedition of "keep nominating it until the 'right' lucky group of people converges upon it and achieves the desired result." As already stated by Reinoutr, this is no more original research than many other lists on Wikipedia, some of which are of very high quality. And the course of this discussion has illustrated, at least to me, that there is no more of a consensus now about this article than there was a month ago, further solidifying my opinion that there's no way that opinion can even sway from "no consensus" to either "keep" or "delete" in a month's time. My !vote is mostly procedural, though I don't really see anything glaringly wrong with this article other than perhaps some need for cleanup and further sourcing. LaMenta3 (talk) 22:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Come on! This has been nominated for AFD six what looks like nine times! And had a deletion review a week ago? There is no consensus to delete this article, there hasn't been since it was first nominated in 2004, and certainly not a month after the last discussion. I'm sure the nominator is in good faith, and I completely believe this is not for censorship reasons, but it's getting borderline disruptive whether that was his intention or not. --Canley (talk) 23:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, six times! Somebody just added the six after three were already listed. The Dominator (talk) 23:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that was me. It does look like more but going on the previous AFD list on the talk page and there seems to be some redirection weirdness going on, so OK, only six times! --Canley (talk) 00:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per my reasoning last time -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 23:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wikipedia isn't a collection of statistics (or at least it shouldn't be). I can't see how this is even remotely encyclopedic. The nominator put it best, I think. --clpo13(talk) 23:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - I know I'm going against everybody else here, but I gotta agree with Clpo13: how is this article encyclopedic? However, being that an AfD was closed so recently with no consensus, that this probably will end in much the same fashion. scetoaux (talk) (My contributions.) 23:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC) - Changed to Keep, due to criteria. scetoaux (talk) (My contributions.) 18:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean. Criteria? The Dominator (talk) 19:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Simply the criteria for lists that has been brought up numerous times by other editors on the AfD. scetoaux (talk) (My contributions.) 19:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. This nomination seems borderline disruptive to me. Not enough time has passed since the last nomination and as Canley said it’s already been nominated SIX TIMES! Consensus does not usually change in four weeks. . . Besides I would vote keep even without the incongruities in nomination. Per Reinoutr this article is clearly notable, useful, and not in violation of policy. A speedy keep would not be unjustified. --S.dedalus (talk) 00:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep; I believe the sources establish the importance of the concept and support the facts, even if this exact list does not exist elsewhere. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep', a list like this is not necessarily original research. It's in a table so WP:NOT doesn't apply. I'm sure you can find sources for such a list if you looked. --Pixelface (talk) 01:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   —Pixelface (talk) 01:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep disruptive nomination Chris!  c t 02:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF The Dominator (talk) 02:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Additionally, this isn't a speedy keep. Per WP:CSK, it only qualifies as speedy keep if: "The nomination was unquestionably vandalism or disruption and nobody unrelated recommends deleting it... (iii) making nominations of the same article with the same arguments after they were strongly rejected."  Last AFD was no consensus, hardly a qualification. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 02:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Reinoutr. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. WP:NOT does not, I repeat, does not apply here.  The article is not lengthy or confusing.  It is certainly not WP:OR, and I see absolutely no reason to delete it. Also, keep WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED in mind. Celarnor (talk) 14:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep no new arguments for a deletion since the last AfD. If it's even the same nominator I find this Deja Vu situation highly disruptive. I also claim the same arguments I wrote during the last AfD, the situation didn't change since. --Einemnet (talk) 18:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I have never nominated this article before. The Dominator (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.